iPhone Killer? Googles Android Demo

SteveOBHave · 13 Nov 2007 at 10:25

It's not the most polished presentation but the interface looks like it could potentially poo all over the iPhone OS and it's 3G to boot. It will almost guaranteed have a much better impact on the European market because

a) there is no ridiculous marketing structure that relies on you signing your soul over to Apple and O2 and
b) it's all open source so 3rd party apps are not locked out - networks are not locked out and Google don't care who uses it.

Better yet Google have set aside 10mil USD to give to the open source developers for the best applications. Apple need to learn, they need to sit up and take notice of how to sell something and stop treating their customers and potential customers as money bags.

In my opinion this is going to hurt Apple quite badly. How soon before people get the iPhone hardware, wipe the OS and install something like Android?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/a-first-look-at-the-google-phone/index.html

pedrochop · 13 Nov 2007 at 10:42

here here!
There is a lot of potential in the Android. I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops.
Although if I installed it onto my N95 and didnt like it, how would I go about getting the original software re-installed?

SteveOBHave · 13 Nov 2007 at 10:51

ah see that's where you'd be really cunning (like a weasel) and make sure you had the flashing capability - I'm sure it's easy enough to find. Just search under N95 Firmware installation or N95 Firmware updater or similar.

lsg1r · 13 Nov 2007 at 11:14

actually I quite like android too, the thing about it which is most appealing is that it could in theory work on anything, pda, phone, laptop embedded into a nas etc. Obviously its being targeted at phones and smartphones first but it could be a worrying time for ms and apple, especially if you start getting smart looking phones from the joined up providers. I also think the white smartphone doesn't actually look too bad.

And the demo is quite impressive, especially considering its just a basic showcase and with the right coding could be better looking and more functional than iphones or any other phone software

SteveOBHave · 13 Nov 2007 at 11:39

I agree - of course there are going to be a great many pitfalls in attempting to make the software truely cross platform. Being open source tho there is going to be stacks of information out there for both developers and users. There is going to be no need for people to wait on the graces of hackers to free up it's use.

Tunney · 13 Nov 2007 at 13:04

So far it looks like the SDK only supports Java. Whilst that gives it better 3rd party support than the iPhone, it's still not what I would technically call a smartphone OS.

Google are obviously trying to commoditise the mobile market the way that Microsoft did to the PC market. They want to make the barriers to developing a new phone as low as possible to encourage the growth of cheap, generic far-eastern feature phones with a capable web browser.

I don't think it's really competing in the same territory as the iPhone. It's really going up against Nokia's S40, Moto's JUIX and similar platforms from Sony Ericsson, Samsung, et al.

SteveOBHave · 13 Nov 2007 at 13:58

Tunney said:
So far it looks like the SDK only supports Java. Whilst that gives it better 3rd party support than the iPhone, it's still not what I would technically call a smartphone OS.

Exsqueeze me? At what stage does Java become a sub standard OS when compared with what you might call a 'smartphone OS'? Jave is an incredibly powerful and potentially more versatile language than any of the symbian and smart phone OSs that exist today. My main reasoning for this statement is that Java is widely used on every single operating system that is available on the market today. It does not require a specific chipset like Symbian or Windows Mobile. It is the logical language to impliment on a smart phone device - what would you suggest as a better option?

Admittedly it's just a stepping stone to eventually getting Linux on a mobile but it's a better option than exists out there now.

I'm curious - what do you define as a Smartphone OS and how does it differ from the capabilities of Android or are you just making a sweeping statement based on assumption?

Google are obviously trying to commoditise the mobile market the way that Microsoft did to the PC market. They want to make the barriers to developing a new phone as low as possible to encourage the growth of cheap, generic far-eastern feature phones with a capable web browser.

Because encouraging the growth of generic far eastern phones will benefit Google massively won't it. Where did that come from? Another assumption based on what? From where I am sitting Google is attempting to make the use of mobiles and the interface that we use as customisable as possible - if anything I see it opening up our options as consumers to allow us to use the phone the way we want to as opposed to how Nokia or Samsung or Apple want us to. I don't see that as a bad thing. Nowhere has Google stated that 'generic far-eastern feature phones' are their preferred device.

I don't think it's really competing in the same territory as the iPhone. It's really going up against Nokia's S40, Moto's JUIX and similar platforms from Sony Ericsson, Samsung, et al.

How can you qualify that statement - S40, JUIX and all the other platform specific OSs are nothing like Android - for starters they are not cross platform and they have little of the potential that it has. In my eyes the iPhone OS is significantly more limited than any of the other mentioned apps - iPhone is a nice GUI with a slick platform specific interface, Apple treat it the same way as they treat OSX - you want it? Then you have to buy our hardware and follow our rules and line our pockets.

Tunney · 13 Nov 2007 at 14:46

Exsqueeze me? At what stage does Java become a sub standard OS when compared with what you might call a 'smartphone OS'? Jave is an incredibly powerful and potentially more versatile language than any of the symbian and smart phone OSs that exist today. My main reasoning for this statement is that Java is widely used on every single operating system that is available on the market today. It does not require a specific chipset like Symbian or Windows Mobile. It is the logical language to impliment on a smart phone device - what would you suggest as a better option?

From what I've seen, Android is mostly coded in C/C++. However, the SDK only allows for 3rd party developers to create Java applications.

Java applications take up more memory and processing power than their natively (i.e. C/C++) equivalents. On other platforms, they also integrate less well with the phone's UI and only have access to a limited number of APIs. If you need high performance then your application needs to be natively coded. This is why there's no Java version of Tom Tom or Quake for mobile phones.

I never said it was substandard, I just stated that it wasn't the iPhone/smartphone contender that people hype it up to be.

I'm curious - what do you define as a Smartphone OS and how does it differ from the capabilities of Android or are you just making a sweeping statement based on assumption?

My definition of a smartphone OS: An open OS capable of running natively coded 3rd party applications. That's something the Android SDK can't do at the moment.

If having a JVM qualifies a phone as a smartphone then that means that practically every phone with a colour screen is a smartphone by your definition.

Because encouraging the growth of generic far eastern phones will benefit Google massively won't it. Where did that come from? Another assumption based on what? From where I am sitting Google is attempting to make the use of mobiles and the interface that we use as customisable as possible - if anything I see it opening up our options as consumers to allow us to use the phone the way we want to as opposed to how Nokia or Samsung or Apple want us to. I don't see that as a bad thing. Nowhere has Google stated that 'generic far-eastern feature phones' are their preferred device.

Google want to wrestle control of the telecoms industry away from the operators and powerful manufacturers. It's no secret and there's strong rumours that Google will be bidding for the open 700Mhz spectrum in the US. Google would love to see mobile internet as open and competitive as fixed line internet. What they don't want is operators funnelling all of their customers towards their own portals and leaving Google out in the cold.

Android isn't about giving consumers what they want. It's about reducing the barriers and cost of manufacturing phones. Just like every other Linux initiative.

And who is the only manufacturer committed to making an Android-based device? It's the Tawainese ODM, HTC. I've guessing

How can you qualify that statement - S40, JUIX and all the other platform specific OSs are nothing like Android - for starters they are not cross platform and they have little of the potential that it has.

What do you mean by "cross platform"? Both S40 and JUIX have a JVM and will run cross-platform J2ME code (theoretically). I don't know about JUIX, but S40 also works on a number of hardware platforms.

SteveOBHave · 13 Nov 2007 at 15:26

Tunney said:
From what I've seen, Android is mostly coded in C/C++. However, the SDK only allows for 3rd party developers to create Java applications.

Java applications take up more memory and processing power than their natively (i.e. C/C++) equivalents. On other platforms, they also integrate less well with the phone's UI and only have access to a limited number of APIs. If you need high performance then your application needs to be natively coded. This is why there's no Java version of Tom Tom or Quake for mobile phones.

I never said it was substandard, I just stated that it wasn't the iPhone/smartphone contender that people hype it up to be.

Might be worth reading these references:
http://code.google.com/android/
http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html

Android is a Linux base OS - From what I can tell (and I may be wrong) developers have access to the entire phones Core functionality - as a developer they have 'NO' restrictions in what fuctionality they wish to call on or what aspect of the interface they wish to alter or replace.

My definition of a smartphone OS: An open OS capable of running natively coded 3rd party applications. That's something the Android SDK can't do at the moment.

If having a JVM qualifies a phone as a smartphone then that means that practically every phone with a colour screen is a smartphone by your definition.

I believe this is exactly what the Android OS is and is capable of doing.

Google want to wrestle control of the telecoms industry away from the operators and powerful manufacturers. It's no secret and there's strong rumours that Google will be bidding for the open 700Mhz spectrum in the US. Google would love to see mobile internet as open and competitive as fixed line internet. What they don't want is operators funnelling all of their customers towards their own portals and leaving Google out in the cold.

Android isn't about giving consumers what they want. It's about reducing the barriers and cost of manufacturing phones. Just like every other Linux initiative.

I don't know about you but I see this as a good thing. Sure it will have an effect on the major operators and manufacturers but having the option to create my phones interface and usability to my blueprint sounds like a pretty good option to me.

And who is the only manufacturer committed to making an Android-based device? It's the Tawainese ODM, HTC.

I think you've missed one of the core advantages of Android - it doesn't need to have a specific form of hardware to be used - it is not designed to be limited to just Google hardware the way Apple is. Their intention is to make this available to any hardware.

What do you mean by "cross platform"? Both S40 and JUIX have a JVM and will run cross-platform J2ME code (theoretically). I don't know about JUIX, but S40 also works on a number of hardware platforms.

Meaning that the entire OS, not just some JVM apps, will run on any platform. Of course there will be some hardware that is more capable than others in utilising the best of the Android interface but it's not going to be limited to such. The nature of Android is that the interface can be modified to integrate with the hardwares capabilities - so in my eyes truely cross platform.

Tunney · 13 Nov 2007 at 15:57

SteveOBHave said:
Might be worth reading these references:
http://code.google.com/android/
http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html

Android is a Linux base OS - From what I can tell (and I may be wrong) developers have access to the entire phones Core functionality - as a developer they have 'NO' restrictions in what fuctionality they wish to call on or what aspect of the interface they wish to alter or replace.

Maybe that's their intention in the long run, but the SDK is aimed at Java apps. The documentation looks great though.

Meaning that the entire OS, not just some JVM apps, will run on any platform. Of course there will be some hardware that is more capable than others in utilising the best of the Android interface but it's not going to be limited to such. The nature of Android is that the interface can be modified to integrate with the hardwares capabilities - so in my eyes truely cross platform.

Natively coded applications won't port across different CPU instruction sets. That's why Windows Vista only supports x86/x64 and OS X only supports Power PC and x86.

Only applications running inside a virtual machine will run across platforms and virtual machines eat up resources.

SteveOBHave · 13 Nov 2007 at 16:43

Tunney said:
Maybe that's their intention in the long run, but the SDK is aimed at Java apps. The documentation looks great though.

Phew - that just went over my head. What I got there was that the SDK supports a mixture of XML and Java. It's looking to be a tad more verstile than just allowing 3rd party apps. Given a bit of time (if I weren't in the middle of studying for my CCNA) I'd have a better read but it's looking fairly promising.

Natively coded applications won't port across different CPU instruction sets. That's why Windows Vista only supports x86/x64 and OS X only supports Power PC and x86.

Only applications running inside a virtual machine will run across platforms and virtual machines eat up resources.

Yeah I know this much - which is why this seems like a more logical manner to approach the future of mobile technology. I can however see us as the users having to 'vet' the various applications for the good and the bad of course the nature of the internet community is that there are more than enough people out there to do most of the early adopter foot work for us.

Between you and I this strikes me as some pretty promising stuff.

Peve · 13 Nov 2007 at 16:50

I can’t wait for a phone with Android to come out the demo looks amazing.
I am not a very good programmer but I can see others making some very interesting applications using the SDK.

Only problem is we won’t see a phone with it until mid 2008

spoonz · 13 Nov 2007 at 18:38

looks crap

edit: changed my mind, he got to the interesting bit

spoonz · 13 Nov 2007 at 18:44

Apple v Google fan boy rants begin..................

Participant · 13 Nov 2007 at 18:49

SteveOBHave said:
Apple need to learn, they need to sit up and take notice of how to sell something and stop treating their customers and potential customers as money bags

Hmm not sure about this. These are two different ways of doing things, rather than a wrong way and a right way. Apple's strategy has hardly let them down so far

. Of course neither has Google's, but Apple tend to appeal to people that basically don't know any better / have more money than sense, so they can afford this aggressive strategy.

How much brand penetration does Google have in the high street electronics market? Currently, not much compared to Apple. For this reason people that aren't idiots might buy a Google product because it's better, whereas others may choose Apple because they don't know any better and it's a brand they recognise from the massive success of the iPod.

SteveOBHave · 13 Nov 2007 at 19:13

Robbie G said:
Hmm not sure about this. These are two different ways of doing things, rather than a wrong way and a right way. Apple's strategy has hardly let them down so far . Of course neither has Google's, but Apple tend to appeal to people that basically don't know any better / have more money than sense, so they can afford this aggressive strategy.

Actually it's the iPod that is keeping Apple afloat - their buy hardware to get the software approach has not really done them many favors.

How much brand penetration does Google have in the high street electronics market? Currently, not much compared to Apple. For this reason people that aren't idiots might buy a Google product because it's better, whereas others may choose Apple because they don't know any better and it's a brand they recognise from the massive success of the iPod.

Perhaps next time you walk down the high street and look at mobile phones and the like - see how many have the Google search page displayed on their screens. To be fair tho Google has a significantly higher profile than Apple could ever hope for - were a Google product of any worth to appear on the high street they wouldn't have to work on the brand recognition. Amazing for a company that has only been around for 10 years.

serlex · 13 Nov 2007 at 20:07

dont know about you lot, but knowing that Eric Schmidt is in both apple and google, kind of makes this apple+google rather than apple vs google

SteveOBHave · 14 Nov 2007 at 08:23

spoonz said:
Apple v Google fan boy rants begin..................

I'm sorry, but at what stage was this ever going to reduce into an Apple v Google fanboy rant? So far we have had a very logical discussion regarding the merits of a new Mobile Phone OS and SDK. If anything it has been based around Google v every other mobile OS including but not exclusively the iPhone.

Why don't you sod off and troll somewhere else. Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all? If you have nothing useful to contribute then just don't bother.

cu3ed · 14 Nov 2007 at 11:27

Just at a guess but I assume some Manufacturers will be installing this so as and when you buy the phone (s), or is it going to be for anyone that has the appropriate phones that can run it?

gord · 14 Nov 2007 at 11:33

SteveOBHave said:
I'm sorry, but at what stage was this ever going to reduce into an Apple v Google fanboy rant? So far we have had a very logical discussion regarding the merits of a new Mobile Phone OS and SDK. If anything it has been based around Google v every other mobile OS including but not exclusively the iPhone.

Why don't you sod off and troll somewhere else. Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all? If you have nothing useful to contribute then just don't bother.

Whoa there MC Jumpypants! I think he was merely pointing out how this will surely create an Apple/Google divide, but in a sarcastic manner.